Search results

J. K. De Vree's "A Theory of Human Behaviour and of the Political Process" (see SA 26:2/78J2195) is criticized. The behavior model offered is faulted on the grounds that it is inconsistent & that it is difficult if not impossible to interpret. That the model is inconsistent is easy to see, thanks to its formal presentation. This criticism might not be very serious, due to the fact that it may be remedied through some small adjustments. The author's own interpretation of his model is not congruent with it. In particular, formulae containing variables that range over both cardinal & ordinal numbers seem impossible to interpret. It is concluded that the problems noted are due to too high a level of generality being sought. In Een reactie op De Vree's 'A Theory of Human Behaviour and of the Political Process' (A Reaction to De Vree's 'A Theory of Human Behavior and of the Political Process'), G. P. de Bruin argues that De Vree's theory is empty of empirical significance, & the theory's weakness can be traced to its mathematical axiomatic foundation. It is argued that the set theoretical concepts of ordinal & cardinal numbers have been misinterpreted, & that the whole problem of measurement in social sciences is merely 'axiomatized away'. In Een ordinale algebra en empirische theorie: een antwoord op Kritiek (An Ordinal Algebra and Empirical Theory: An Answer to Criticism), J. K. De Vree concedes that the theory is so far empty, & that the nature of its relationship to empirical data remains an unsolved problem. This is the case with all general theories & does not constitute a valid objection. It is further argued that the proposed axiomatization is nothing more than a systematization of the system of numbers & relations used in actual empirical research, & that far from axiomatizing away the measurement problem, a systematic account is given of the number system without which measurement would not be possible. A. Orianne.

The bad reputation in the social sciences of social Darwinian theories is one of the main hindrances to paying attention to ethology, the biological study of behavior. Although developments in this area of research suggest interesting implications for political science, so far, very few political scientists have dealt with these matters. First, the biological way of thinking about behavior is introduced. The object & method of ethology are dealt with, & attention is paid to the problems of function, causation, & history of behavior of animal & man. The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, which is fundamental to ethology & to the main argument presented here, is summarized. It is concluded that morphology & behavior are both evolutionary organisms. Next, man is considered in the perspective of evolution. The belief in a rigid distinction between nature & nurture is discussed. The modern biological view that the human capacity for making culture is genetically coded is accepted. In a second part, some aspects of this biological view of behavior, relevant to political science, are discussed. From a comparison of definitions in ethology & political science, it appears that social behavior is the most important problem in both disciplines. Social scientists usually study behavior as an autonomous subject while biologists integrate their vision of behavior in the larger context of evolution. There is a fundamental similarity between ethological concepts of social behavior & some recently developed conceptions of political behavior. It is argued that relinquishing the more traditional focus of political science on state-oriented or group-centered action is an important condition.

Political science as an independent science was born in the Netherlands in 1948 when J. Barents was appointed the first Dutch political science professor. Political science departments exist now in 5 Dutch universities. About 900 political scientists got their BAs & 50 their doctorates in the Netherlands. Eighteen hundred students are currently majoring in political science. The 200 books published by Dutch political scientists since 1948 are surveyed. It is concluded that there has been a major advance in knowledge & insight & that much is still to be desired. From a political science viewpoint the Dutch map is a mostly blank area. Political science knowledge is fragmented. There is more analysis than synthesis. A policy of work accumulation is missing. Manpower & research funds are short. Government financial support of teaching & research is extremely limited compared to the natural sciences. 2 Tables. Modified AA.

The state of Dutch political thought in the seventeenth century is reviewed. Three main approaches are discussed: (1) The critical approach is represented by P. de la Court, who, influenced by Hobbes, defended a more democratic type of government. (2) The historical-philological movement, represented by J. Lipsius, Boxhornius, & Burgersdijk, was based on Aristotelian metaphysical concepts to develop a more systematic base for historical research. This movement influenced the development of the typical research style of the political sciences in Germany. (3) B. de Spinoza's passion-reason theory led to an analytical political science, exemplifying the typical method of integrating theory & empirical (historical) information. Modified HA.

The possible contributions of sociobiology & ethology to the political sciences are critically examined. E. O. Wilson's Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard U Press, Belknap Press, 1975) is reviewed & the key concepts of his theory are presented. The group "Science for the People" criticizes Wilson's work as racist & supportive of the status quo; their complaints are rejected as biased & unjust. The last three IPSA congresses in Munich (1970), Montreal (1973), & Edinburgh (1976) show that attempts to relate biology & political sciences exist, though they are still rare. The sessions on "Biology & Politics" in the Montreal congress are presented as an example. Here, the emphasis is on the methodological contributions of ethology to political sciences. The concept of "social systems" is seen as a major contribution to the social sciences. It demands a stronger shift toward interdisciplinary works between political & biological sciences. W. Zimmerman.

A DOCUMENTARY RECORD OF A SERIES OF CONFLICTS CONCERNING POLITICAL SCIENCE AT THE U OF AMSTERDAM IS PRESENTED. ON 20 DEC 1972 THE COUNCIL OF THE DEPT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE (IN WHICH STAFF & STUDENTS ARE REPRESENTED) ADOPTED A NEW SYSTEM OF INTERDISCIPLINARY GROUPS WITHIN THE DEPT. THIS DECISION WAS THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE FOR THE PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, H. DAUDT, & 5 STAFF MEMBERS TO SUSPEND THEIR TEACHING ACTIVITIES. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE U & THE U COUNCIL BECAME INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE. ORDERED TO RESUME THEIR TEACHING ACTIVITIES, THESE CIVIL SERVANTS APPEALED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT. THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED CONSIST OF OFFICIAL LETTERS, STATEMENTS, RULINGS, & EXTRACTS FROM THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PUBLIC BODIES THAT DEALT WITH THE MATTER. THE CONFLICT, WHICH STANDS UNRESOLVED AT THE TIME OF PUBLICATION, CAN BE SEEN AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF MORE OVERALL DEBATE ABOUT THE POSITION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT THE DUTCH U'S & STUDENT ACTIVISM. HA.

THEORY FORMATION IN POLITICAL SCIENCE HAS HEADED TOWARD A "NEW POLITICAL ECONOMY" WITHIN WHICH 4 CLUSTERS ARE DISTINGUISHED: (1) 'SPATIAL MODELS OF PARTY COMPETITION', (2) THEORIES OF COLLECTIVE ACTION, (3) THEORIES OF ALLOCATION OF VALUES, UNDER SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER, IE COALITION THEORIES, BARGAINING THEORIES & REINTERPRETATIONS OF DUOPOLY THEORIES, & (4) THEORIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIOR. THE 4 CLUSTERS ARE THE RESULT OF THE INTEGRATION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE & ECONOMICS. THE SIMILARITY IN THEORETICAL STRUCTURE OF THE 4 CATEGORIES IN POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH THE CORRESPONDING THEORIES IN MICROECONOMICS, WELFARE ECONOMICS, & PUBLIC ECONOMICS CONSISTS OF THESE ELEMENTS: (A) THE PREPONDERANCE OF A DEDUCTIVE (VS INDUCTIVE) STRATEGY OF THEORY BUILDING, (B) THE 2 PREMISES OF INDIVIDUALISM & GOAL-ORIENTED BEHAVIOR, (C) PREOCCUPATION WITH VARIOUS CORRESPONDING AMENDMENTS ON ASSUMPTIONS IN THE ECONOMIC THEORY OF PERFECT COMPETITION, & (D) THE THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIOR AS BASED ON THE AMENDMENT OF THE ASSUMPTION OF PERFECT & COSTLESS INFORMATION & THE HOLISTIC ('UNITARY ACTOR') OF DECISION-MAKING IN THE THEORY OF THE FIRM. MODIFIED HA.