Hi, getting visibility among core literary public is benchmark
of publishing success and this message is part of an aggressive online campaign
for the promotion and visibility of my two books [1] Political Internet and [2] Intimate Speakers among core reading public in
online space.
It will be really helpful if you are able
to help me forward, share, tweet, post, or tag this message or parts of this
message among potential
beneficiaries of the ideas in the books in your network, your friend’s
network or their networks?
Or anyone should according to you
benefit if they work broadly on anything related to social media, Internet,
society, politics, cyber sexuality, Internet pornography, intimacies,
women and online misogyny, introverts, underprivileged people, Diaspora,
cyberspace, Internet in education, International relations, digital politics,
social media and state, public sphere, civil society, social capital,
contentious politics and so on.
1. Political Internet: State and Politics in the Age of Social
Media, (Routledge 2017)
Buy it on Amazon:
Preview on Google Play:
Preview on Google Books:
Preview on Kindle:
Publisher Website:
2. Intimate Speakers: Why Introverted and Socially Ostracized Citizens
Use Social Media, (Fingerprint! 2017).
Buy it on Amazon:
Flipkart:
Blog Review:
goodreadsreviews:
Contact the author
Facebook: https://www.facebook
Twitter: https://twitter.com/b
Blogger: http://bijugayu.blogs
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin
WordPress: https://bijugayu.wo
Tumblr: http://bijugayu.tumblr
Google +: https://plus.google.com/102
Twitter: https://twitter.com/b
Blogger: http://bijugayu.blogs
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin
WordPress: https://bijugayu.wo
Tumblr: http://bijugayu.tumblr
Google +: https://plus.google.com/102
Biju
P R
Author,
Teacher, Blogger
Assistant
Professor of Political Science
Government
Brennen College
Thalassery
Kerala,
India
My Books
1. Political Internet: State and Politics in the Age of Social Media,
(Routledge 2017), Amazon https://www.amazon.in/
2. Intimate Speakers: Why Introverted and Socially Ostracized Citizens Use Social Media, (Fingerprint! 2017)
Amazon: http://www.amazon.in/dp/
1. Political Internet: State and Politics in the Age of Social Media,
(Routledge 2017), Amazon https://www.amazon.in/
2. Intimate Speakers: Why Introverted and Socially Ostracized Citizens Use Social Media, (Fingerprint! 2017)
Amazon: http://www.amazon.in/dp/
Aristotle,
the greatest writer on Political Science the world has had, called Political Science
the master or supreme science. Several modern critics, however, refuse to Political
Science even the name science. They say that the subject-matter of the science is
so varied and in many cases so inexact, that proper scientific methods cannot be
applied to it. Political science is not like studies in natural science, say
chemistry or physics. The arguments of such critics apply equally to all the social
sciences. Social, political and economic problems deal with the complex actions
and motives of men, actions for which it is often admittedly difficult to fine general
laws. You cannot predict what might be your neighbor thinking, your lover imagining,
and your niece views so on so forth. All because they ar human being and their
mind and actions do not seem connected in the eye sight of other people.
It
is true that in Political Science there are many difficulties which do not
occur in, say, Chemistry or Physics. In the Natural Sciences it is possible by observation
and experiment to obtain uniform and exact laws. In Political Science it is difficult
to find uniform and unvarying laws. The material is constantly varying. Actions
and reactions take place in various and often unforeseen ways. A man is a member
not only of a state, but of a host of, other social groups—a municipality, a church,
a trade-union, a stock-exchange, a university, a caste or a family. To understand
his actions in one phase of his life often requires a knowledge of the social groups
influencing, or influenced by him. Social and political relations are constantly
changing, and what may be true of them to-day may not be true a century hence.
The
exactness of Physics and Chemistry is thus absent "from the social
sciences, particularly political science. It is impossible to deal with problems
of man in the clear-cut way by which we can deal with problems of matter. It is
easy to analyse a chemical compound and to say exactly what it is. Experiments,
too, in these natural sciences enable laws to be tested with accuracy and in various
ways. In all matters concerning man, too, there are unconscious assumptions in the
mind, which, formed before the mind consciously reacts to them, often give a
bias to our judgments. It not infrequently happens in social sciences, like
Political Economy and Political Science, that at the outset of our study we cannot
lay down the final limits of the subject-matter.
While
we may agree that the exactness of the natural sciences is impossible of attainment
in the social sciences, nevertheless social problems can be treated with the same
scientific methods as Chemistry or Physics.
Meaning of
Approach:
From all this understanding,
let us assume that there are several methods by which political science tries to
udnerstand socio-economic problems. From the days of ancient Greek political
thought scholars, philosophers and political scientists have analysed,
investigated various types of socio-political issues and incidents from the
standpoint of their own perspective and on the basis of the study they have
arrived at conclusions and prescribed recommendations.
This has inevitably led to the
emergence of a number of approaches to the study of political science. Now we
shall first of all try to analyse various aspects of each approach but before
that we shall define approach. According to Van Dyke the word “approach is
defined to denote the criteria employed in selecting the questions to ask and
the data to consider in political inquiry”.
In the opinion of Van Dyke,
approach means criteria. A criterion is used to explain or analyse the
political questions and data. Since the questions and data are very great in
number and varied in nature each political scientist or philosopher analyses
them in his own way by applying his own standpoint and method.
In physical or chemical science
there exists an agreed method and more or less all researchers and scientists
apply those agreed methods. But there is hardly any place of broad based
agreement in political science as to the method and approach.
Another aspect of approach is
methods employed by political science for its study cannot be distinguished
from the methods used by other branches of social science. So also the
approaches of political science are not different from other approaches.
However, this general
observation is not hundred percent correct. Sometimes the approaches employed
by political scientists differ in content from the approaches used by other
social scientists. Thus variety of approaches for the study of political
science is a central aspect of the subject.
Again from the past history of
political science we gather the idea that at different periods different
approaches have gained importance. In other words, the rise and fall in the
importance of approaches is a noticeable characteristic.
Approach, we can say, is a
scientific way of studying a subject. The students will have to analyse and
categorize data, facts, events, problems etc. The point to note is that they
cannot do it unscientifically or proceed haphazardly. To be precise, for a
balanced and effective analysis and promising investigation analysts must
proceed in a systematic way and for that purpose the students or analysts must
apply a method or criterion and we call it approach.
Therefore, approach is a way to
analyse a subject or what may suitably be called a discipline. It is believed
by many that the application of an approach considerably enhances the
importance and credibility of the analysis as well as discipline. So without an
approach the analysis of the subject may not be in a position to receive wide
support from the readers and also their credence.
Classification
of Approaches:
The approaches
employed by political scientists for the study of politics have been classified
by Wasby in the following way: one classification may be based on fact-value
problem. This leads to the division of classification into normative approach
and empirical approach.
The other
classification is based on the objective of study of political science. That
is, in this approach the political scientists want to stress the specific
purposes of studying and investigating politics. This broad group can again be
subdivided into philosophical, ideological, institutional and structural
approaches.
Some scholars are of
opinion that Wasby-proposed classification of approaches is generally
traditional in nature. Modern political scientists have made a broad
classification of the approaches. On the one hand there is normative approach
which to some extent liberal bias and on the other hand Marxist approach.
Normative
Approach:
The Meaning and Origin of
Normativeness:
It is the broad intellectual foundation
in which traditional approaches to political problems are evolved over a period
of time. The term normative is derived from the Latin word norma, meaning precept rule, carpenter’s square. The word norm
means usual, typical or standard thing. Normative relates to norm or standard.
The central idea of normative approach is—the subject is viewed and analysed
normatively that is there are certain standards, rules and precepts which must
find their application in political science.
Again, political science means
in its operative aspects. When the state starts its operation its primary
objective would be to achieve the above-noted norms, standards and precepts.
The success and failure will determine the nature, credibility, acceptability
of the state or government.
Hence norms are several
principles which an authority cannot deny. The accountability of the authority
is also based on these norms and principles. Norm or normativeness is explained
in terms of “should” and “ought”. It means that the authority should do it or
adopt such and such policy or decision. Or it ought to do it.
Therefore, normativeness talks
about preference. The word preference is not different from should and ought.
To sum up, the objectives and functions of state are judged in the background
of preference, should and ought.
Origin of the Approach:
Normative approach to the study
of politics owes its origin to the political philosophy of Greek philosopher Plato.
The thought of a good society or an ideal state and the entire structure of
such a state are built upon the concepts like ‘should’, ‘ought’, ‘preference’
etc. He said that any state or society ought to be or should be ideal or good
and he has elaborated the criteria of good or ideal in his The Republic.
The picture of state that
prevailed in Plato’s time was very far from of what ought to be or should be.
In most of the city-states in Plato’s time there was no place and recognition
of morality, virtue, ideals and ethics. But he firmly believed that a state
ought to have these eternal values and he also said that in order to be an
ideal state all individuals must be ideal that is they must possess virtues
such as morality and various ethical qualities.
His great disciple Aristotle
followed the footsteps of Plato and elaborated the ideal state. In latter
periods we come across a number of philosophers who emphasised the normative
approach of politics and the great contractualist Rousseau is a prominent figure.
The normative approach stressed
by Plato, Aristotle, and Rousseau etc has assumed the form and colour of
Utopia. Utopia means something which has no practical foundations and it is not
supported by reasons. Large number of philosophers began to scan the existing
systems by Utopian criteria. Again with the help of this standard existing
situations are to be judged.
Thomas More (1478-1535)
imagined of a Utopia or an imaginary state. His famous book Utopia was
published in 1516 and here he depicted the picture of an ought to be state. He
disapproved the drawbacks that characterised the prevailing state of his time
and that led him to think of an ought to be state.
Central Idea of Normative
Approach:
The central idea of the
normative approach to the study of politics is politics or analysis of state or
the functions of state are to be viewed in the light of what ought to be rather
that what they are. The normativeness wants to give preference to should and
ought to be. It wants the realisations of certain universal values, norms or
principles through, the machinery of state. “Instead of asking how social
policy decisions have come to be made, it asks instead about how they ought to
be made. In such studies the aim is to examine a set of political principles, detail
their logical characteristics and explore their implications for social policy,
at least in broad institutional terms”.
It is assumed by some that
since normative principles relates to what should be or ought to be these
principles can easily be ignored. But the great adherents of the approach
declare unambiguously that norms, or principles are not to be ignored but they
are to be implemented. “Normative theory should be a reflection on practice,
not a means of ignoring it”.
Thus we can say that values,
principles or eternal ideas relating to politics or function of state
constituted the central idea of normative approach to the study of politics. In
other words, this approach says that norms or principles are to be followed in
practice and the aim of such norms is to make the political organisation
acceptable to all or majority people.
Components of the Normative
Approach:
In the normative approach there
is an emphasis on what is good and what is not good. It says that when a
policy-maker proceeds to formulate policy or adopt a decision he must see that
to what extent the policy or decision will produce desired results. The concept
of goodness is linked with expectation.
The members of political
organisation want to fulfill their manifold desires and they expect that the
authority shall act accordingly. It may be that the expectations do not always
tally the real results. But that does not matter. The expectations fall in the
category of “ought to be”. Good also relates to the attainment of welfare
objectives of the state. The term good starts to scan the policy, decision and
function of authority.
The normative approach
establishes the concept of responsibility. If certain norms and principles are
put forward and if they are made binding on the authority, people can judge the
success or failure of the authority. In other words, norms are easy of locating
the responsibility.
Normative approach stipulates
that norms or principles are of immense value and importance so far as the determination
of policy and decision and their implementation are concerned. ‘Is’ or ‘what’
is happening, are important no doubt but every authority must follow these
norms and ideals.
Normative approach envisages of
striking a balance or equilibrium between what is or what happens and ought to
be or should be. Any biasness will invariably plague the proper functioning of
state as well as decision making process.
An authority aiming at the
attainment of general welfare objectives cannot take the risk of neglecting
either ought to be or what is. The balancing process is not a stable one. It is
always in an unstable condition. It moves from one stage to another.
Normative approach never thinks
of anything settled. Though it is generally argued that norms, values,
principles are of eternal in nature but scholars are of opinion that the word
‘eternal’ need not be taken seriously.
Values, norms etc. are always
subject to change and a responsible authority must take this change into
account and also will act accordingly. That is normative approach though pays
heavy emphasis on norms it proceeds with the change. In every age certain
norms, values and principles are given more importance and they are given
priority.
Importance of Normative
Approach:
It is now evident that in
normative approach there is lot of importance of norms, values, ideals, ideas.
It further believes that they have got relevance in the study of politics. It
is a fact that all these cannot be translated into reality. But on this ground
the norms, values, etc. cannot be thrown into the wind. They have importance
and a large number of political scientists and statesmen still believe that the
norms have immense importance.
The normative approach
criticises the functions, principles and policies of the existing states as did
Plato in his The Republic. Even today the same approach is followed. The
criticism by the supporters of the normative approach has not always succeeded
in changing the prevailing course of action of the state or the un-normative principles
of the authority.
But it has been able to aware
the public about the state of activities of political organisation. This
approach suggests that what is going on should be changed for the better. It is
still believed that the normative approach can be helpful for the day to day
activities of state.
It is alleged that normative
approach to the study of politics is a smack of norms, ideals, values and
principles which have not full relevance to the reality of social and political
situation. But this criticism is not tenable. As every individual should decide
certain principles which he wants, to follow, a state should also decide or set
up certain ideals, norms and principles which it should apply while deciding
policies and taking decisions.
All these are declared in
various forms such as constitution, laws and general policy decisions. After
deciding the principles or general objectives the state proceeds to implement
them. This can be illustrated by the Constitution of India. The Preamble to our
Constitution contains several lofty ideals and many of them are yet to be
achieved. But this non-implementation does not invalidate the ideals.
The rise of welfare state and
its increasing popularity have added new feathers to this approach. The concept
of welfare state declares that the function of the state does not exhaust in
maintaining law and order alone, it must perform many other functions which
will bring about general welfare to the society. The welfare objectives on the
one hand and ideals, norms, principles on the other hand are always at par. The
welfare objectives pay more importance upon the ought to be or should be.
The function of the state is
not a static one. In a dynamic society it should also be dynamic. It means that
the state should make continuous efforts for the improvement of its functions
and this again means that there should be certain ideals, principles and norms
before it. Otherwise it will have to sail in an uncharted sea. But a pragmatic
theory of state does not suggest that the state should sail in an uncharted
sea. The fact is that the state should decide certain ideals and then it will
begin its journey.
It is apprehended that there
may arise conflict between practice and ideals or between “is” and “ought to
be” and this conflict may dwarf the activities of the state. There is also a
possibility that the norms could not be fulfilled. But the non-fulfilment does
not call for its rejection. Norms are always norms and they always act as
guiding stars.
Plato’s ideal state,
philosopher king, Aristotle’s polity, Marx’s classless state or society, his
communism, Rousseau’s moral state etc still haunt us. We all know that all
these can never be achieved but we still hope that we must try to achieve them
because they are our ideals.
It is not surprising that in
the writings and thought systems of every philosopher there is an important
place of ideals and principles and this place is very much important. Take the
case of utilitarianism. Its great pro pounders proposed that the state authority
must follow the principle of pleasure and pain or in general the policy of
utility while making policy or taking decisions. The utilitarianism has not
been strictly followed or it is ignored, but it still holds good as a policy of
liberalism.
The supporters of the normative
approach say that this hints at the efficiency of the state. Once the norms and
ideals are declared the authority of the state should make arrangement for
their implementation any discrepancy between promises and performance will call
for a valuation of the activities. If the discrepancy stands at a minimum level
that will be an indication of the efficiency of the state.
Some political scientists claim
that an adequate and comprehensive political theory must duly take into account
of the normative approach to the study of politics. Legal approach and
empirical approach have importance no doubt. But normative approach has
importance.
Now let us examine various
traditional or normative approaches. There are various Traditional Approaches: The
traditional approaches can be sub-divided into the following-
1.Philosophical
2.Historical
3.Institutional
4. Legal approaches.
2.Historical
3.Institutional
4. Legal approaches.
Historical
Method
The
chief method of experimentation from ancient times, in Political Science is thus
the Historical Method. The best modem English exponents of historical method were
Seeley and Freeman. They used mainly inductive method- drawing conclusions
first and observation second. Induction was a kind of method of observation
developed by Plato. By it generalisations are made from the observation and study
of historical facts. The Historical Method is supplemented by the Comparative
Method, a method which is as old as Aristotle. Similar events may occur under very
different political conditions, or vice versa, similar political conditions may
lead to very different political events. Revolutions, for example, have happened
at all times and under various conditions. By the Comparative Method we sift out
what is common, and try to find common causes and consequences. A modern example
is the recent Russian Revolution. Political Scientists compare it with the English
Great Rebellion and the French Revolution, trying not only to explain what has happened
but to lay down rules for the future guidance of the Russians.
Meaning and Nature of
Historical Approach:
The historical approach to the
study of politics is one of the traditional approaches. History means the
records of past incidents and facts. These took place at different periods. It
also means what people have thought or imagined. “History as a record consists
of documentary and other primary evidences” which occurred in the past. So far
as historical approach is concerned we shall concentrate our attention on
historical events recorded in documentary evidences.
The characteristic feature of
historical approach is that history as a written or recorded subject focuses on
the past events. From history we come to know how man was in the past and what
he is now. History is the store-house of events. From the biographies,
autobiographies, descriptions by authors and journalists we come to know what event
took place in the past.
It is to be noted here that the
events must have political baring or they must be politically significant.
These events provide the best materials upon which theory and principles of
political science are built. History tells us how government, political parties
and many other institutions worked, their successes and failures and from these
we receive lessons which guide us in determining the future course of action.
Let us take an example.
The American President enjoys
enormous powers. But all his powers are not derived from the Constitution. In
order to find out a distinction between what powers he enjoyed past and powers
now he is exercising, historical analysis is essential. Naturally, history
helps us a lot in this regard. Without history we cannot collect any past
incidents. The sources of British constitution are historical facts or
incidents.
A very small part of British
constitution is written. Powers and functions of Prime Minister, Monarchy and
different organs of government are derived from history. To support or refute
an argument or a conclusion one can cite facts recorded in the pages of
history. The principles or conclusions of politics in many cases are based on
historical incidents. Briefly stated the historical approach means to study
politics with the help of facts derived from history.
History is not simply the
record of past events and achievements but the interpretations, comments and
explanations made by the historians. They also arrange the events
chronologically. All these are regarded as suitable materials for political
scientists. We can say the historians have made the task of the political
scientists partially easy. The comparisons and conclusions of historians very
often throw ample light on principles of politics.
Two great personalities of
political philosophy depended upon history in a remarkable way. They are Marx
and Hegel. In fact, Marx’s theory of class struggle and increasing
impoverishment of the working class are buttressed by historical data. Hegel
drew inspiration in formulating a philosophical theory of civilisation and its
manifestation in national state from the study of history. Dyke says that Marx
has reified and personified history.
Michael Oakshott unequivocally
lays emphasis on the historical approach of the study of politics. He offers us
the following observation: “Politics as the activity of attending to the
general arrangements of a collection of people who ……. compose a single community.”
Here his main emphasis is on the tradition and practice of political community.
He also distrusts rationalism.
In his judgment, inhabitants of a state are “hereditary cooperative groups.”
Oakshott’s final observation demands our special attention. He says “what we
are learning to understand is a political tradition, a concrete manner of
behaviour. And for this reason it is proper that at the academic level the
study of politics should be an historical study.”
Not only Oakshott but many
other modern political’ scientist have supported the historical approach to the
study of political science.
Evaluation of Historical
Approach:
The historical approach to the
study of politics has faced a few challenges from several quarters. One of the
main fulcrums of the challenges is history has two faces— one is documentation
of facts which is quite naive and the other is interpretation of facts and
phenomena. Again, the accumulation of evidences is to be judged from a proper
perspective.
The implication is adequate care
should be taken while evaluating evidence and facts and it is not surprising
that such a caution is not always strictly followed and, as a result the
historical facts do not serve the proper purpose of those who use it. This is
the main objection against the historical approach to the study of politics. We
can in this connection remember the opinion of a critic.
He says: “History in the light
of the best modern practice is to be sharply distinguished from the
antiquarianism or the collection of facts for their own sake and should be
defined rather as the study of problems or causes, the interpretation of
phenomena”.
Of course, how much caution the
historian will take cannot be said before-hand. It depends upon the person and
the facts. Caution is, however, essential. The adoption of caution is mandatory
because history records fabricated data. Facts and incidents are not always
correctly recorded. This is not an imaginary allegation.
Alan Ball has drawn our
attention to another dark side of the historical approach. He says “past
evidence does leave–alarming gaps, and political history is often
simply a record of great men and great events, rather than a comprehensive
account of total political activity.” Very few historians interpret historical
events and evidences broadly and liberally.
Narrowness in outlook prevails
upon them leading to the biased interpretation of facts. This cannot provide a
better and reliable basis for political science. The historian must be sincere
in collecting facts and impartial in interpreting them. Such an approach only
can be helpful for the study of politics.
Sir Ivor Jenning’s is a great
authority on British constitution and his analysis about various aspects of
British Constitution is still regarded as authentic. His treatment of history
is really unique. The depth of analysis, broadness of outlook and impartiality
of treatment has elevated his research and students of politics still remember
him. From the records of history Jennings has formulated a comprehensive
account of the British Prime Minister, Parliament and other departments of
Government.
Robert Mackenzie studied the
party system and Mackintosh investigated the working of cabinet system of
England. Their method is historical, but they have interpreted the documents
liberally. The writings of these authors are encouraging and have created
precedents. Many other thinkers have depended upon historical facts for the
analysis of politics. Many of them have been successful, but not all.
Philosophical Method
Greek
philosopher Plato used the Philosophical Approach for studying Political
Science. While giving his ideas on Philosopher King, Ideal State etc., he was
more concerned with what ‘ought to be’ ( what is desirable) rather than dealing
with the existing realities of those societies. He had also set various norms
for the philosopher kings and also of an ideal state.
Philosophical
enquiries have been at the heart of civilizations and urban life. Ancient to the modern, philosophical enquiries fascinated humanity. Questions such as what is life, who am I,
what is nature, what is the nature of beauty have found profound interest in
the curiosities of humankind.
Political
studies from ancient times adopted philosophical enquiries. Fundamental and philosophical questions had
fueled the study of politics sinceGreek period. Socrates to John Rawls,
philosophers had raised philosophical questions for the study of politics. Socrates
for example had a habit of raising series of questions whenever he met a
respondent. His question and answer
methods were Dialetics or Elenchus.
Plato
in his Republic raised a fundamental philosophical question-what is an ideal
polis/state. His student, Aristotle had
too enquired the nature of ideal polis.
In NicomachenEthics, Aristotle
had enquired fundamental questions such as what is friendship, justice, virtues, ideal life,
common good.
Machiavelli,
Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau,
Marx to Habermas in contemporary times,
philosophical enquiries had found deep application.
Philosophical
method in political studies enquired fundamental questions related to political
life- what is ideal state, which is best
government, who is ideal ruler, why political obligation, who is best citizen and so on. Answering
original questions created certain moral standards in political life such as do
not engage in corruption, rulers should
be motivated not by sheer power but by common good and prosperity of the
state, citizen should obey laws and pay
tax. This in the end created a good socio-political basis to political living.
These
inductive methods are useful so far, but they must be used in conjunction with what
Bluntschli calls the Philosophical Method. The truly -Phiiosophicaiphical, Deductive
or a priori method of which Rousseau, Mill and Sidgwick are exponents, starts from
some abstract, original idea about human nature and draws deductions from that
idea as to the nature of the state, its aims, its functions and its future. It then
attempts to harmonise its theories with the actual facts of history. The danger
of this method is that the user, as Plato in his Republic or More in his Utopia,
often allows his imagination to run riot and he forms theories which have little
or no foundation in historical facts. The result is that the method degenerates
into what Bluntschli calls mere Ideology, which pays little or no attention to
facts. This is particularly dangerous in practice, as may be seen from the French
Revolution, the leaders of which were the unreasoning followers of those who, like
Rousseau, preached the doctrine of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. A modern example
is the Russian Revolution, where abstractions preached by dreamers led to a collapse
of the governmental system and to anarchy and mob-rule unparalleled in history.
Philosophical approach is
another traditional or classical approach of studying politics. There are many
definitions of philosophy and one such definition is, philosophy “is the study
or science of truths or principles underlying all knowledge and being.” It
means that philosophy or philosophical approach attempts to find the truth of
political incidents or events. It explores the objective of political writings
or the purpose of political writer.
The purpose of philosophical
approach is to analyse the consequences of incidents in a logical and
scientific manner. According to Van Dyke “philosophy denotes thought about
thought. Somewhat more broadly it denotes general conceptions of ends and
means, purposes and methods.” The purpose of philosophical approach is to
clarify the words and terms used by the political philosophers. The enquiry
started by the philosophical approach removes confusion about the assumptions.
The important plus point of
philosophical approach is it enters into the depth of every aspect of political
phenomena and scans them without any partiality Its interpretation of political
activities evokes interest in the minds of students of politics Words and
phrases used by philosophers throw light on the subject. Philosophical
approach, it is claimed, enhances linguistic clarity. That is why it is said
that this approach aims at thought about thought.
The method applied by
philosophical approach is logical analysis. It uses reason to find out the
truth. The truth which this approach establishes or finds out may be of various
kinds-normative, descriptive or prescriptive. But the philosophical approach is
indifferent to the nature or category of truth.
It also tries to establish
standards of good, right and just. It has been observed by a critic that the
objective of this approach is to determine what is in the interest of the
public and he identifies interest more with ends that with means.
In the vast range of political
science there are a number of great or remarkable books Philosophical approach
wants to explore the meaning and central theme of these books as well as the
exact purpose of the authors. In the contemporary Greek city-states of Plato
morality, moral values and idealism degraded to such an extent that he received
a great shock and seriously thought to revive these and this urge prompted him
to write The Republic.
He wanted to establish that
politics and morality are not antithetic concepts. Rather, an ideal and moral
body politic can be made a real one through the selfless administration by a
philosopher-king. John Locke wrote his Second Treatise to justify the interests
and objectives of the new middle class and he struggle of people for liberty.
Machiavelli and Hobbes wrote to
support royal absolutism. We may not agree with the views of these philosophers
or the arguments of these books, but it must not be forgotten that the books
were written at particular and critical moment of history.
Philosophical approach helps us
to understand the contemporary history and the nature of politics suggested by
philosophers. To put it in other words, the philosophical approach helps us to
the acquainted with the political ideologies of past centuries. In this sense,
the philosophical approach is highly important.
Criticism of the Philosophical
Approach:
In spite of the immense importance
of the philosophical approach to the study of politics critics have raised
several questions about its worthiness. One of the central ideas of political
philosophy is idealism and it is prominent in Plato’s The Republic Critics say
that idealism itself is quite good but when its practical application arises it
appears to be a myth.
Idealism was a favourite theory
of Plato, but it had not practical importance and be fully realised that
idealism would never be translated into reality. It is a subject of sheer
imagination. Machiavelli and Hobbes wrote with the sole purpose of supporting
the status quo. We cannot forgive Hobbes for his authoritarian view and
anti-individualist stand.
The philosophical thinkers of
the earlier epochs were impractical thinkers. They had no intention to
propagate ideas which can change society. They were indifferent to people s
liking and disliking, their love for liberty, their sorrows and sufferings and
they failed to provide prophylactic devices. As an academic discipline philosophical
approach is all right, but as, practical guide for action it has hardly any
importance.
Evaluation:
Plato and Hegel were
impractical philosophers no doubt. Their philosophy may impress us but does not
guide us. There are other philosophers who do not fall in this category. For
example philosophies of Marx, Engels, Lenin guide us and in the purpose was to
change the society. These philosophers took a realistic view of society. They
interpreted history from materialistic point of view. The idealism and
philosophy of Marx, Engels and some others had a relation to material world.
The idealist philosophers of
earlier periods had strongly advocated certain moral, ethical and ideal values.
It is true that these values will never be realised in reality. But ideal is
ideal, it guides us. The eternal value of Plato’s idealistic philosophy in
politics is not divorced from morality and idealism.
The philosophical ideas of
particular philosophers are to be judged in the background of contemporary
social, economic and political situations. Machiavelli supported royal
absolutism for the unification of Italy. Hobbes wanted to save England from
disorder and anarchy which engulfed the British Society of his time.
All of them were great
patriots. Ruosseau could not tolerate the alienation of man from society and
the loss of liberty with the progress of civilisation, arts and literature. To
him the state was a public moral person whose chief duty was to ensure liberty
and morality as well as to reform the people. The philosophical approach to the
study of politics throws light on these aspects of politics.
Degradation of moral values and
rampant corruption are the distinguishing features of the society which is at
the threshold of the 21st century. If we want to free politics from these, we
must try to revive moral values and idealism about which Plato spoke long ago.
We are not thinking about a philosopher-king, but we must think about an
honest, able, moral and ideal ruler who may be a prime minister or president.
Plato’s main concern was
justice and ideal state. Marx spoke of emancipation of the toiling mass. All
these constitute the elements of idealism and we cannot treat them
insignificant. In the Preamble of the Constitution of India there is a word
‘justice’.
The purpose of the welfare
state is to ensure emancipation. Locke’s liberalism appears and reappears. His
constitutionalism has an important place in British and Indian systems. In our
analysis of the philosophical approach to the study of politics we must remember
these points.
Legal Approach
This approach
regards the state as the fundamental organization for the creation and
enforcement of laws. Therefore, this approach is concerned with the legal
process, legal bodies or institutions, justice and independence of judiciary.
The advocates of this approach are Cicero, Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy
Bentham, John Austin, Dicey and Sir Henry Maine.
Legal approach
focuses upon how legal framework influence human behavour and activities. Ever since
Platonic times, law has been a concern of political studies. Many branches of
studies have deleoped in political science in terms of law such as
international law, public laws, constitutional laws, civil laws.
Institutional
Approach
This
is a very old and important approach to the study of Political Science. This
approach mainly deals with the formal aspects of government and politics
emphasizes the study of the political institutions and structures. Thus, the
institutional approach is concerned with the study of the formal structures
like legislature, executive, judiciary, political parties, interest groups etc.
The advocates of this approach include both ancient and modern political
thinkers. Among the ancient thinkers Aristotle is an important contributor to
this approach while the modern thinkers include James Bryce, Bentley, Walter
Bagehot, Harold Laski, etc.
Institutional approach to the
study of politics is very common today and according to Wasby it is important.
Readers, scholars, researchers and even ordinary people are accustomed to view
politics in term of the institutions. The institutional approach is also called
structural approach. According to Maclver institutions are established forms of
procedure.
Institution relates the
structure and machinery through which human society organises, directs and
executes multifarious activates required to satisfy human needs. According to
this definition family, government and state and all types of organisations
which have flourished within the states are institutions. Institutions are,
therefore, created to meet human requirements. Political parties, pressure and
interest groups, legislature all are institutions.
The traditional political
thinkers were primarily concerned with the activities and role of the different
types of institutions and they viewed politics in terms of the institutions.
Dyke’s cogent remark is-the study of politics is the study of the state or of
government and related institutions.
This is also the definition of
politics. Politics thus, cannot be separated from state or government i.e.
institutions. Wasby’s definition is little bit elaborate. He says, “The
emphasis of the institutional or structural approach is almost exclusively on
the formal aspects of government and politics. Since various institutions
constitute the structure of society it is also called structural approach”.
The emphasis of institutional
or structural approach is that the institutions their rules and procedures are
important for the analysis of political phenomena and not the individuals
constituting the institutions. The advocates of institutional approach do not
even consider the impact of institutions or rules upon the individuals. They
are inclined to say that the institutions in political analysis are of prime
importance.
Political science, for long
periods of time, was studied in the light or perspective of the function and
behaviour of institutions. The British and American political scientists up to
the Second World War concentrated their attention on legislature, party system
and pressure group activities. They did not think it proper to throw light on
the other factors of politics. In a word, politics to a group of thinkers was
institution- concept and nothing else.
The institutional approach has
been vehemently criticised. Chief objection against this approach is
institutions are, no doubt, important for politics, but they cannot form the
entire structure of politics. The institutionalists have been charged of being
biased, because they have neglected the individuals who form the institutions.
Without individuals the
institutions have no practical importance and it is unfortunate they have not
paid proper attention to them. The supporters of this approach have interpreted
politics narrowly.
Characteristics
of Traditional approaches:
1. Traditional
approaches are largely normative and stresses on the values of politics
2. Emphasis is on the study of different political structures.
3. Traditional approaches made very little attempt to relate theory and research
4. These approaches believe that since facts and values are closely interlinked, studies in Political Science can never be scientific.
2. Emphasis is on the study of different political structures.
3. Traditional approaches made very little attempt to relate theory and research
4. These approaches believe that since facts and values are closely interlinked, studies in Political Science can never be scientific.
5. Inductive
method: Proceeds to observation only after first drawing an initial theory or
conclusion about phenomena being observed.
Criticisms of the Traditional Approach:
The traditional approach to the
study of politics has been under attack from several corners and the main
points of attack are noted below:
The traditional approaches have
dismally failed to recognise the role of the individuals who play very
important roles in moulding and remoulding the shape and nature of politics. In
fact, individuals are important actors of both national and international
politics. The focus is directed to the institutions.
It is surprising that behind
all the institutions there are individuals who control the structure, functions
and other aspects. Singling out institutions and neglecting individuals cannot
be pronounced as proper methods of studying politics. The definition politics
as the study of institution’ is nothing but an exaggeration or it may be called
a travesty of truth.
Traditional approach is mainly
descriptive. Politics does not rule out description, but it is also analytical.
Mere description of facts does not necessarily constitute the subject matter of
political science. Its purpose is to go to the depth of every incident.
Researchers want to know not only what is happening, but also why a particular
incident occurs at a particular time.
The view-point of the
traditionalists is, limited within the institutions. Political scientists of
today’s world are not inclined to limit their analysis of politics within the
four walls of institutions. They have investigated the role of environment into
which is included international politics multinational corporations,
non-governmental organisations or trans-national bodies.
The decision-making process of
the nation state is influenced by international events and the political
activity of other nation states. When the traditionalists were writing the
nature of politics, the interdependence of national and international politics
was not unknown to them and it is their failure not to recognise if. Viewed in
this light we can say that traditional approach is biased and incomplete. It
has not the ability to meet the needs which are rising in the present age.
Attention is to be paid to
another shortcoming. The traditional approach as a method of analysing politics
is deficient for the analysis of political institutions of the Third World
countries, particularly the countries which do not follow the Western political
system in to. In these countries, if we try to find out Western system or
institutions that will be an utter failure.
It is, therefore, alleged that
traditional analysis is unsuitable for all types of political systems—both
Western and non-Western. To compensate this deficiency the political scientists
of the post-Second World War period have devised a general system approach
which is quite comprehensive.
Before drawing a curtain upon
this part of analysis we like to quote liberally the observation of Stephen
Wasby. He says, “Just as a dissatisfaction with an over-concentration on the
philosophical approach to the study of politics had brought a shift towards the
study of institutions and formal structures, with an accompanying move from
normative to empirical outlooks, so there was increasing realisation that
institutional approach did not encompass all the world of politics.
Scholars began to recognise
problems in the use of the “State” concept. Other basic emphases were also
questioned. Because not all rules and structures have been reduced to law, the
legal approach to politics and the institutional approach had never completely
coalesced. Political scientists of an institutional bent, freed from the
European location of political science within faculties of law, recognised that
there is much material within political science not subject to legal
examinations.”
Students and researchers of
politics began to extend their outlook and interest to the other areas and
these required new approaches. The scholars also devoted their energy to the
comparative analysis of various political systems. We shall now turn our
attention to other approaches such as comparative approach, power approach and
interest group approach.
