III. Complete the following sentences:

1. Karl Marx was the first theorist who attempted to ... .

2. For this purpose he used the so-called ... .

3. Political science courses were introduced in ....

4. Enthusiasm for a science of politics increased in ... .

5. The form of political analysis was based on ... .

6. Behaviouralism, for the first time, provided ....

7. David Eraston proclaimed that ....

8. This gave rise to a proliferation of studies in ... .

9. Behaviouralism had some weak points such as

10. In accordance with it, democracy was redefined in terms of ... .

10. In other words, democracy came to mean ....

IV. AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING:

1. David Easton was the first theorist to describe poli­ tics in scientific terms.

2. But Marx was able to make predictions as laws in the natural sciences.

3. In the 1880s, political science courses were intro­ duced in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

4. Political analysis drew heavily on behaviouralism.

5. It gave politics reliably scientific credentials.

6. But behaviouralism came under growing pressure from the 1960 s.

7. Behaviouralism was an ideal conception for political analysis.

8. Dissatisfaction with behaviouralism was reflected in the writings of J.Rawls and R.Nozivck.

328

Part II

Political science

9. Behaviouralism did not contain any subjective con­ cepts.

1 0. Democracy was redefined in terms of observable behaviour.

V. READ PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 AGAIN. FIND FOUR DISADVANTAGES OF BEHAVIOURALISM AND EXPRESS THE SAME IDEAS AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE.

VI. DEDUCE THE DEFINITION OF BEHAVIOURAL­ ISM FROM THE TEXT.

VII. TRANSLATE FROM RUSSIAN INTO ENGLISH Бихейвиаризм — убеждение, что социальные теории

следует строить только на основании наблюдаемого пове­дения, обеспечивающего количественные данные для ис­следования.

VIII. DIVIDE THE TEXT INTO LOGICAL PARTS AND MAKE UP AN OUTLINE OF THE TEXT.

IX. SPEAK ON THE MAJOR POINTS OF THE TEXT IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR OUTLINE.

Word study

I. GIVE RUSSIAN EQUIVALENTS FOR THE FOLLOW­ ING ENGLISH WORDS:

To strive; vogue; to take up; mainstream; to draw upon; credential; to lack; proliferation; to suit; to constrain; scope; entity; obsession; to incline; to discard; to contaminate; to compete; to stand for; to revive.

II. GIVE ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS FOR: Движущая сила исторического развития; с точки

зрения доказательства; поведение избирателей; отвер­нуться от традиции нормативной политической мыс-

329

Учебное пособие для философов и политологов

ли; неподдающиеся эмпирической проверке сущности; вызывать сомнение; через механизм всенародных вы­боров.

III. ARRANGE THE FOLLOWING WORDS IN THE PAIRS OF SYNONYMS.

scope notion

to attempt to diminish

to uncover sphere

to predict to disclose

to test to try

to reduce important

concept to forecast

significant to verify

IV. TRANSLATE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES INTO RUSSIAN PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ADJECTIVES WITH THE SUFFIX «-ABLE» MEANING «THAT CAN OR MAY BE DONE».

1. It was a dirty road and was usable only six months a

year.

2. All this was understandable.

3. A person with a sense of humour is a lovable and

loving person.

4. It may be advisable to go there.

5. They used only quantifiable data.

V. FIND SENTENCES WITH THE SAME ADJECTIVES IN THE TEXT AND TRANSLATE THEM IN WRITING.

VI. DISCUSSION

Science, scientism

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning 'knowledge') is a field of study that aims to develop reliable explana­tions of phenomena through repeatable experiments, ob­servation and deduction. The 'scientific method', by which

330

Part II

Political science

hypotheses are verified (proved true) by testing them against the available evidence , is therefore seen as a means of disclosing value-free and objective truth. Karl Popper (1902-1994), however, suggested that science can only fal­sify hypotheses, since 'facts' may always be disproved by later experiments. Scientism is the belief that the scien­tific method is the only source of reliable knowledge, and so should be applied to fields such as philosophy, history and politics, as well as the natural sciences. Doctrines such as Marxism, utilitarianism and racialism are scientistic in this sense.

V II. LOOK THROUGH THE TEXT «RECENT DEVELOP­ MENTS» AND MAKE UP AN OUTLINE.

VIII. GIVE A SUMMARY OF THE TEXT

IX. LOOK THROUGH THE TEXT AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. WORDS GIVEN BELOW AND NOTES MAY BE HELPFUL.

Recent Developments

Amongst recent theoretical approaches to politics is what is called formal political theory, variously known as 'politi­cal economy', 'public-choice theory' and 'rational-choice theory'. This approach to analysis draws heavily upon the example of economic theory in building up models based upon procedural rules, usually about the rationally self-interested behaviour of the individuals involved. Most firmly established in the USA, and associated in particular with the so-called Virginia School, formal political theory pro­vides at least a useful analytical device which may provide insights into the actions of voters, lobbyists, bureaucrats and politicians, as well as into the behaviour of states with-in the international system. This approach has had broad­est impact on political analysis in the form of what is called institutional public-choice theory.

331

Учебное пособие для философов и политологов

By no means, however, has the rational-choice approach to political analysis been universally accepted. While its supporters claim that it introduces greater rigour into the discussion of political phenomena, critics have questioned its basic assumptions. It may, for instance, overestimate human rationality in that it ignores the fact that people seldom possess a clear set of preferred goals and rarely make decisions in the light of full and accurate knowledge. Furthermore, in proceeding from an abstract model of the individual, rational-choice theory pays insufficient attention to social and historical factors, failing to recog­nize, amongst other things, that human self-interested-ness may be socially conditioned, and not merely innate. As a result, a variety of approaches have come to be adopted for the study of politics as an academic discipline. This has made modern political analysis both richer and more diverse. To established normative, institutional and be­havioural approaches have been added not only rational-choice theory, but also, more recently, feminism and dis­course theory. In particular, political philosophy and po­litical science are now less likely to be seen as distinct modes of enquiry, and still less as rivals. Instead, they have come to be accepted simply as contrasting ways of disclosing political knowledge. Notes:

Discourse: Human interaction, especially communica­tion; discourse may disclose or illustrate power relation­ships.

impact - influence rigour - точность innate - врожденный rival - соперник

1. What new theoretical approaches emerged?

2. Where was rational — choice theory developed?

3. What does it provide?

4. How do the supporters estimate it?

332

Part II

Political science

5. W hy do critics question its basic assumptions?

6. What other new theories emerged?

7. What conclusion does the author come to?

X. IN CONCLUSION SUM UP THE MAIN APPROACH­ES TO THE STUDY OF POLITICS.

UNIT VIII

I. READ AND TRANSLATE

Can the Study of Politics Be Scientific?

Although it is accepted that the study of politics should be scientific in the broad sense of being rigorous and criti­cal, some have argued, as has been pointed out, that it can be scientific in a stricter sense, that is, that it can use the methodology of the natural sciences. This claim has been advanced by Marxists and by positivist social scientists, and it was central to the 'behavioural revolution' of the 1950s. The attraction of a science of politics is clear. It promises an impartial and reliable means of distinguishing 'truth' from 'falsehood', thereby giving us access to objec­tive knowledge about the political world. The key achieving this is to distinguish between 'facts' (empirical evidence) and 'values' (normative or ethical beliefs). Facts are objec­tive in the sense that they can be demonstrated reliably and consistently; they can be proved. Values, by contract, are inherently subjective, a matter of opinion.

However, any attempt to construct a science of politics must confront three difficulties. The first of these is the problem of data. For better or worse, human beings are not tadpoles that can be taken into a laboratory or cells that can be observed under a microscope. We cannot get 'inside' a human being, or carry out repeatable experiments on human behaviour. What we can learn about individual behaviour is therefore limited and superficial. In the absence

333

Учебное пособие для философов и политологов

of exact data, we have no reliable means of testing our hypotheses. The only way round the problem is to ignore the thinking subject altogether by subscribing to the doc­trine of determinism. One example would be behaviourism (as opposed to behaviouralism), the school of psychology associated with John B. Watson (1878-1958) and B.F. Skin­ner (1904-90). This holds that human behaviour can ulti­mately be explained in terms of conditioned reactions or reflexes. Another example is 'dialectical materialism', the crude form of Marxism that dominated intellectual enquiry

in the USSR.

Secondly, there are difficulties that stem from the existence of hidden values. The idea that models and theories of politics are entirely value-free is difficult to sustain when examined closely. Facts and values are so closely intertwined that it is often impossible to prize them apart. This is because theories are invariably constructed on the basis of assumptions about human nature, human society, the role of the state and so on that have hidden political and ideo­logical implications. A conservative value bias, for example, can be identified in behaviouralism rational-choice theories and systems theory. Similarly, feminist political theories are rooted in assumptions about the nature and significance of gender divisions.

Thirdly, there is the myth of neutrality in the social sciences. Whereas natural scientists may be able to approach their studies in an objective and impartial manner, holding no presuppositions about what they are going to discover, this is difficult and perhaps impossible to achieve in poli­tics. However politics is defined, it addresses questions re­lating to the structure and functioning of the society in which we live and have grown up. Family background, so­cial experience, economic position, personal sympathies and so on thus build into each and every one of us a set of preconceptions about politics and the world around us. This means that scientific objectivity, in the sense of absolute

334

Part II

Political science

impartiality or neutrality, must always remain an unachie­vable goal in political analysis however rigorous our re­search methods may be. Perhaps the greatest threat to the accumulation of reliable knowledge thus comes not from bias as such, but from the failure to acknowledge bias, re­flected in bogus claims to political neutrality.