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 Reappraising David Easton can make Political Science Research more Exciting.

D avid Easton’s theory of the political system has long been  misrepresented  as requiring a mechanistic theory of causation, thus dehumanizing political behavior. The widespread claim that his vision was of the political system as striving for equilibrium is totally false.   Easton was a humanist. He envisioned human political behavior as a consequence of the meanings people create volitionally in their own minds and social context. He rejected the automaton theory of political behavior.     He also understood the relationship between system performance and public opinion and sentience. A well operating system will likely result in public satisfaction and support. Poor operation, the opposite.   That, in turn, implies a  standard,  or norm, by which to assess how well a political system is performing. Indeed, Easton's theory of the empirical political system can also be used as a way to assess how well a political system is operating. Efficiency and effectiveness are elements to b
Post a Comment
Read more

Causation, Not Correlation, in Interpretive Political Science

Using David Easton’s theory of the political system as my interpretive framework, in this post I will offer a non-mechanistic theory of how human political behavior can be “caused.” I will argue that, for Interpretive Political Science, reasons can be causes of political behavior. Indeed, respect for the subject matter – human political behavior – requires this causal theory. After all, people are not machines. “Reasons” will be understood as units of meaning in the minds of people. I will offer examples of such causal relations in the operations of two political systems, China and Peru. Hypothesis: The operation of a political system will tend to provide reasons which explain the political sentience of the public. A well-functioning political system will probably be the reason for high approval ratings among its membership. Likewise, a poorly functioning system will probably be the reason for low approval ratings. China In the past 40 years the Chinese political system hel
Post a Comment
Read more

Does Political Science Force Graduate Students into a Career of Irrelevancy?

Introduction In a 2014 New York Times op ed, columnist Nicholas Kristof drew numerous defensive responses when he criticized political science for having very little “practical impact” in “the real world of politics.” [1] Rather than exercising civic leadership, political science has been most noticeably AWOL from public policy debates since WWII, he claims. And, in his view, there are “fewer public intellectuals on American university campuses today than a generation ago.” How does he account for this absence? Primarily, it is due to the academic interest in pursuing the quantitative approach in political science research. This kind of research is too often unintelligible to both the politically interested general public and the policy making community. Also, the “value neutrality” required for such studies prohibits advocacy. The pattern persists, in part, because graduate students must conform to the expectations of their professors, as a requirement for a successful academic
Post a Comment
Read more