Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

Political science 207
Summary. As foreshadowed in Section D.1, the argument of this Section is
open to dispute at each step, and it may be helpful to summarize briefly, so that
the steps of the argument are clear. There is in fact much less dispute about the
content of research than about its taxonomy, so that disagreement over taxonomy
need not invalidate the summary of research. But the disagreements are
important, in that they are built into the traditions of the discipline.
Section D dealt with the discipline in so far as it seeks to be a ‘natural science’
of the social phenomenon referred to by the ‘family’ of words which includes
such terms as power, force, influence, authority, dominance, leadership.
Some political scientists hold that in the interests of scientific objectivity the
discipline should limit itself to such studies. But it is observable in practice that
political scientists rarely follow that precept; and it can be maintained that the
tradition and special character of the discipline is that it seeks to deal both with
analysis and with evaluation. The latter is indeed a threat to objectivity; but it
is wiser to face the threat than to wish it away.
Assessment involves criteria. It is argued here that there are three sorts of
criteria in common use, and that these can be used as a framework for posing
questions about what happens in politics and about how the conduct of politics
might be improved.
These dimensions have here been called ‘institutional’, ‘economic and social’,
‘constitutional’, words which have no virtue in themselves.
The first is concerned with the expression of consent through institutions
specifying procedure for public decision. Elections are by no means the only
such procedure, but research and criticism have been dominated by concern
with elections. In recent years, however, discussion has been broadened by
concern with other institutions concerned with public decisions; in particular,
on the one hand citizen participation, on the other hand the institutions
of pluralism or countervailing power.
The second is concerned with relations between the political system or State
and its environment. This can be put with great force in Marxist terms, but the
importance of technological and ecological considerations is not under-rated in
the West. The relationship is reciprocal. On the one hand how well is the system
related to the demands of its environment? Assuming that when the fit between
polity and environment is bad the polity must change or perish; how does one
rate various existing systems? On the other hand, how far is a given system
effective in working on the environment so as to maximize benefits for its citizens?
Is it successful in discharging economic and social tasks? If it is not successful
how is change to come? From within or from without, gradually or by
violent revolution?
Thirdly, there is the dimension of freedom as expressed in terms of rights.
The tradition of constitutionalism is specifically Western, though it is not hard
to find analogies for it in tribal societies which existed before the emergence of
the State.
These characteristic standards have been treated here as dimensions; probably
no-one would be so dogmatic as to insist on assessment on the basis of one
dimension only, though there would be dispute about the relative weight to be