Skip to main content

A Breakthrough in Value Science will Change the Way Political Science is Done

David Easton (1952) understood that a clearly defined interpretive framework can serve the normative function of guiding research. He intended his concept of the “political system” to provide that service. He said more than he knew. For, when combined with the Formal Axiology of Robert S. Hartman, Easton’s interpretive framework can provide a service he did not quite envision. 

Easton’s concept of the political system can also serve as a standard, or conceptual norm, for assessing the goodness of political systems, and for comparing the goodness of systems. This is not a matter of moral approval or approbation, but more like the taxonomist assessing the goodness of a specimen, as to both its categorical fit and its health, i.e., a scientific goodness.

Thus Easton’s interpretive framework provides political science with a way to move beyond its traditional explanatory function into the new realm of evaluating the scientific goodness of political systems.

Once a set of behaviors on the ground have been identified as a "political system," two measures can be taken to assess its goodness. The first is the operational, or extrinsic, measure. This measure consists of evaluating how well a political system functions. For example, is it efficient in its use of those resources available to it? Is it effective at achieving its policy goals? Is the flow of information, from the inputs and demands people make through to the outputs in the form of policies and responses, smooth and unobstructed? This measure can be taken quantitatively.

The second measure in the process of evaluating a system's goodness is more qualitative. This is the intrinsic assessment. That is, how do the people living in the political system feel about their lives within the system?  Of course, not just any or all feelings will be elicited, but the politically relevant feelings. These feelings can be known by exercising the mixed methods of interpretive political science. These include participant observation, interviewing, focus groups, etc.

The skilled interpretivist will be able to not only elicit these feelings, but will be able to assess the authenticity of them. Some subjects may be afraid to speak freely, or may lack the self-awareness necessary to articulate their politically relevant feelings. An evaluative political science study will have to consider these variables.

Now political scientists will be able to answer the question "what is a good political system" with empirical data. Suppose the operations of a system are as efficient and effective as a NASA rocket, but most of the folks living in it are miserable and resentful about the way they are living. Such a system can hardly be rated highly. Suppose a system is fumbling and inefficient, but almost everyone in it enjoys political happiness. Such a system will rank highly among all the political systems in the world.

As people learn that other folks, in other systems, are happier than they are, they will want to know why, and how they can start doing better.

Thanks to this breakthrough in the science of value, and in political science, the world will be on its way to becoming a much better place for all us humans!

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.                                                                                              

@InterpretivePo1 

References

Easton, David. 1953, 1971. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. Alfred A. Knopf, N.Y; 2nd ed.

Easton, David.1965a A Framework for Political Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Easton, David.1965b A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hartman, Robert. 1967. The Structure of Value: Foundations of Scientific Axiology. Southern Illinois University Press: Carbondale, Illinois.

Kelleher, William. 2021. Normative Political Science.

https://independent.academia.edu/WilliamJKelleherPhD

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How the “But For” Test for Causation in Law can be Adapted to Political Science

For social science, as for law, the concept of “causation” can  take on different forms. These forms of causation are “outside   the box” of the old Newtonian concept of causation. That is, a   one-on-one collision. For example, the “8 ball” in a pool game moved to the corner pocket because the cue ball struck it at the intended angle. The cue ball did that because Minnesota Fats hit the cue ball just right with his pool stick. This is a mechanistic model of causation. In that model, the list of causes prior to Minnesota Fats could go back endlessly; or at least to the Big Bang of 13.8 billion years ago, which, mechanistically, is thought to be the First Cause of everything. However, for the most part, social science, like law, envisions human behavior as conduct for which the actors are responsible. This need not be a “moral” responsibility, for which moral blame is attached. Instead, “causal responsibility” is simply a matter-of-fact, or practical, concept...
Post a Comment
Read more

RIP Prop 33 😭 What happened?

Why did Prop 33 lose in California? Here are three reasons, although there could be more:  1) Out of state billionaire real estate special interests, combined with in-state millionaire Landlord orgs, spent over $121,000,000 on telling scary falsehoods to Californians. Like, rent control will cause rents to go up, and affordable housing will disappear. They just needed to cause enough confusion about the meaning of Prop 33 to get the voters – even tenants! – to vote no.   2) As I explain in a vid on YouTube,* the California Legislative Analyst presented a biased and negative summary of Prop 33 in the Voter Guide. That was sent out to 22M Californians. For many voters, it was the one and only thing they would read about Prop 33. The law requires the Legislative Analyst to suggest the economic impact of a prop for both state and local gov – but only a negative view was given, and only for the state gov – “tens of millions” would be lost in tax revenues, it said. But renters w...
2 comments
Read more

Executive Immunity – Beyond the Hype

                                           The media and fund raising emailers are having a ball screaming “the sky is falling! The Trump Supreme Court has given Trump ‘absolute immunity’ for whatever he wants to do as President. He’ll kill us all!” But that’s far from true. The United States v Trump The case is known as US v Trump . In its opinion, the Supreme Court didn’t give Trump anything. In fact, the Court remanded the case to the District Court, and told the lawyers for both sides to start all over again. This time, they have to consider three important points. Before explaining these, lets see how the case got to the High Court. As you probably know, Trump was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for several criminal charges alleging a conspiracy to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. (SCt's Opinion, page 2. All references to the Opinion.) In the...
Post a Comment
Read more