Is the Study of Politics Best Considered a Science or an Art?
Is the study of politics best considered a science or an art?
Since its conception as a formal academic discipline, Politics has existed on the fault line between two great fields of enquiry, the sciences and the arts. During the mid 20th century, with the rise of the behavioural movement, a general trend towards the “scientification” of the study of politics could be observed. The origins of this movement can be traced back to the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle and the writings of Auguste Comte in the nineteenth century (Sanders, 2010). However from the 1970s, there emerged a growing dissatisfaction with behaviouralism and a revival of interest in normative questions, as seen in the writings of theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick (Heywood, 2002). This debate over the nature of politics, which is reflected in the different stages of development of the discipline, continues till date. But before we can decide which position is more relevant, it is important to clarify the distinction between the science of politics and the art of politics.
Those who consider the study of politics as a science and those who consider it an art, pursue slightly different aims and apply different methodologies (Berlin, 1979). As Leftwich (2004) puts it, “the study of politics [as] a scientific endeavour... seeks to identify, on an explanatory and probabilistic basis, some general regularities, patterns and processes (if not laws) underlying all politics....”; whereas, “the study of politics [as] a more humanistic, historical, normative and hence non - scientific exercise, [is] concerned with the qualitative understanding and evaluative analysis (and moral judgement) of particular processes at particular times and in particular places.” Leftwich is distinguishing between the arts and sciences by pointing out the difference in their purposes and their aims of enquiry. Science is concerned with identifying repetitive patterns and thereby outlining laws which are
Since its conception as a formal academic discipline, Politics has existed on the fault line between two great fields of enquiry, the sciences and the arts. During the mid 20th century, with the rise of the behavioural movement, a general trend towards the “scientification” of the study of politics could be observed. The origins of this movement can be traced back to the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle and the writings of Auguste Comte in the nineteenth century (Sanders, 2010). However from the 1970s, there emerged a growing dissatisfaction with behaviouralism and a revival of interest in normative questions, as seen in the writings of theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick (Heywood, 2002). This debate over the nature of politics, which is reflected in the different stages of development of the discipline, continues till date. But before we can decide which position is more relevant, it is important to clarify the distinction between the science of politics and the art of politics.
Those who consider the study of politics as a science and those who consider it an art, pursue slightly different aims and apply different methodologies (Berlin, 1979). As Leftwich (2004) puts it, “the study of politics [as] a scientific endeavour... seeks to identify, on an explanatory and probabilistic basis, some general regularities, patterns and processes (if not laws) underlying all politics....”; whereas, “the study of politics [as] a more humanistic, historical, normative and hence non - scientific exercise, [is] concerned with the qualitative understanding and evaluative analysis (and moral judgement) of particular processes at particular times and in particular places.” Leftwich is distinguishing between the arts and sciences by pointing out the difference in their purposes and their aims of enquiry. Science is concerned with identifying repetitive patterns and thereby outlining laws which are
Bibliography: Almond, G. and Genco, S. (1977), ‘Clouds, Clocks, and the Study of Politics’, World Politics, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 489-522. Berlin, I. (1979). Against the Current, London, The Hogarth Press, pp. 80-111. Bond, J. R. (2007). ‘The Scientification of the Study of Politics: Some Observations on the Behavioral Evolution in Political Science’, Journal of Politics, November, Vol. 69, Issue 4, pp. 897-907. Duverger, M. (1966). The Idea of Politics, London, Methuen, pp. ix-xiii. Heywood, A. (2002). Politics, Great Britain, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 14-17. Horwitz, R. (1962). ‘Scientific Propaganda: Harold D. Lasswell’, in: H. J. Storing (editor), Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., pp. 225-304. Lasswell, H. (1958). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How?, New York, McGraw-Hill, p. 3. Leftwich, A. (2004). What is Politics?, Oxford, Polity Press, p. 5. Parsons, C. (2010). ‘Constructivism and Interpretive Theory’, in: D. Marsh and G. Stoker (editors), Theory and Methods in Political Science, Great Britain, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 80-98. Pierce, D. (2008). Research Methods in Politics, London, Sage, pp. 41-45. Sanders, D. (2010). ‘Behavioural Analysis’, in: D. Marsh and G. Stoker (editors), Theory and Methods in Political Science, Great Britain, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 24.