Search results

The development of a strict methodology of observation & analysis in soc sci has always met with resistance. In the current debate on this topic in the US, 2 positions can be distinguished. There are the 'theorists,' who find their inspiration in the work of recent philosophers such as H. Marcuse & J.-P. Sartre; they rate the formation of a pol'al theory as a 1st priority. Then there are the 'behaviorists,' whose first care is for sci'fic method. This contrast is reviewed on the basis of the document, "Political Science at Berkeley, An Invitation to a Discussion," which was published anonymously by a group of students. The criticism of these students can be summarized under the headings 'commitment' & 'relevance.' As far as commitment is concerned, the critics reproach the behaviorists for not taking stands in important contemporary moral issues, & for identifying with the status quo. It is argued here that what leads to acceptance of & identification with the existing pol'al order is not behaviorist methodology as such, but rather the mood of the behaviorists. As far as 'relevance' is concerned, the critics are impatient with the futile detail analysis & data collecting of the behaviorists. The behaviorists' use of a strict methodology of explanation by generalization leads to a reduction of the scope of analysis. Then only the 'easy' aspects ('easy' to quantify, 'easy' to collect, etc) are analyzed, & discontinuous developments are neglected. The argument presented here is that the lack of a dynamic theory of the pol'al process is an impediment indeed for pol'al sci, but that, again, behaviorism as such cannot be accused of being 'conservative' or 'conformistic': the refutation of race theories, for example, was rather a radical undertaking. It is concluded that for the time being it is not necessary to lay other bounds on pol'al sci than those that follow from the claims of rational debate & intellectual honesty. HA.