Theoristen versus behavioristen

The development of a strict methodology of observation and analysis in social science has always met with resistance. In the current debate on this topic in the United States two positions can be distinguished. There are the ’theorists’, who find their inspiration in the work of recent philosophers such as Marcuse and Sartre; they rate the formation of a political theory as a first priority. And there are the ’behaviorists’, whose first care is for scientific method. This contrast is reviewed on the basis of the document Political science at Berkeley, which was published anonimously by a group of students. The criticism of these students can be summarized under the headings ’commitment and ’relevance’. As far as commitment is concerned the critics reproach the behaviorists for not taking stands in important contemporary moral issues, and for identifying with the status quo. The author argues that what leads to acceptance of and identification with the existing political order, is not behaviorist methodology as such, but rather the mood of die behaviorists. As far as ’relevance’ is concerned, the critics are impatient with the futile detail analysis and data collecting of the behaviorists. The behaviorists’ use of a strict methodology of explanation by generalisation, leads to a reduction of the scope of analysis. And then only the ’easy’ aspects (’easy’ to quantify, ’easy’ to collect, etc.) are analyzed, and discontinuous developments are neglected. The author argues that the lack of a dynamic theory of the political process is an impediment indeed for political science, but that, again, behaviorism as such cannot he 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 hounds on political science than those that follow from the claims of rational debate and intellectual honesty