Revision summary
Post-behaviouralism is Easton’s 1969 turn from technique-first behaviouralism to a science of public problems. The Credo of Relevance puts substance before technique and accepts professional responsibility for the use of knowledge. Action science means inquiry organised to change problems, joining data to explicit values. The turn corrects value-neutrality as evasion; it fails if it drops method for slogans. Indian policy and rights research is action science when it evaluates institutions, not only when it reports attitudes.
Model answer
Introduction
Post-behaviouralism is David Easton’s 1969 correction of the behavioural revolution. The Credo of Relevance says that political science must speak to the urgent problems of the time and must become an applied, problem-solving science of action, not only a value-neutral catalogue of regularities.
Body
From behaviouralism to the credo
- Behaviouralism, which Easton had promoted, sought observable attitudes, systems of demand and support, and cumulative theory.
- Robert Dahl’s decision studies and Almond and Verba’s civic culture were products of that programme.
- By 1969, war, racial conflict, and urban crisis in the United States made a purely technical science look evasive.
- Easton’s American Political Science Association address stated a credo: substance must precede technique; the needs of the day must set the agenda; science should not hide behind facts when the facts are of suffering.
- Relevance meant that the profession accepts responsibility for the use of knowledge.
Action science
- Action science, in this setting, is inquiry organised to change a public problem, not only to describe it.
- It joins empirical tools to explicit values: peace, racial equality, poverty, and later environment and gender.
- The analyst is not a spectator. She designs institutions, evaluates policy, and accepts that intervention is part of the knowledge process.
- This is closer to Marx’s thesis on changing the world, and to policy analysis, than to a laboratory model of detached observation.
- Foucault would later warn that sciences of action also govern; Easton’s credo still assumed that relevant science could serve human ends.
Analysis of the advocacy
- The credo correctly ended the pretence that Easton’s own systems theory had no value premises.
- It risked turning the discipline into short-term advocacy without the very methods that make action competent.
- A balanced post-behaviouralism therefore keeps measurement and comparison, and then asks, with Rawls, which action is just, and with Mill, which action leaves liberty standing.
- Indian political science that studies implementation of Parts III and IV, panchayats, and welfare statutes is action science in Easton’s sense when it evaluates and proposes, not only when it counts votes.
- The credo does not abolish theory. It forbids a theory that will not meet the world in which allocation, in Easton’s own definition, already happens.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD B[Behavioural science] --> E[Easton 1969] E --> CR[Credo of Relevance] CR --> AS[Action science] AS --> P[Problem-solving] AS --> V[Explicit values]
Conclusion
- The Credo of Relevance made post-behavioural political science an action science: empirically informed, value-explicit, and responsible for public problems. Easton corrected his own behavioural programme. The analysis holds if action remains disciplined by method and by a public theory of justice, not if relevance becomes only a slogan.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Fascism displays an ambivalent stance towards parliamentary democracy. Explain
Next question in the 2023 paper (Q3). View answer →
-
Did post-behaviouralism reject data?
No. It rejected the claim that technique and value-neutrality come before the problems of the time.
-
Is action science the same as activism?
It is disciplined intervention and evaluation. Activism without method is not what Easton’s credo asked the profession to become.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2023 · Q1(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Normative approach in Political Science. -
2023 · Q1(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Multicultural perspective on rights. -
2023 · Q1(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
State of Nature as State of War (Hobbes). -
2023 · Q1(e) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Decline of political theory. -
2023 · Q2(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Success of contemporary democracies lies in the State limiting its own power. Explain -
2023 · Q4(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
"The legal subordination of one sex to another is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human development." (J. S. Mill). Comment -
2022 · Q1(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Systems Approach. -
2022 · Q1(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Cultural Relativism.
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Normative approach in Political Science.
Political Theory
The normative approach asks what political life ought to be and argues about justice, liberty, and obligation. Plato, Aristotle, the contract theorists, Mill, and Rawls are central practitioners. Easton and Dahl supply empirical maps of systems and decisions that cannot replace the question of right. Communitarian critics warn that abstract persons can hide real communities. Indian Parts III and IV show that a constitution is itself a public set of ought-statements.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Multicultural perspective on rights.
Political Theory
Multicultural theory treats culture as a condition of using liberty, not as a private hobby. Kymlicka, Taylor, Parekh, and Walzer argue for recognition and, in some cases, group rights. Indian Articles 25 to 30 and linguistic states are the constitutional form of that argument. Ambedkar’s Article 17 and sex-equality limits block a group veto over civil liberty. The perspective fails if it either ignores minorities or traps persons inside the group.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
State of Nature as State of War (Hobbes).
Political Theory
Hobbes’s state of nature is a state of war: a condition of known readiness to fight where there is no common power. Competition, diffidence, and glory are the three causes of quarrel. Natural equality of vulnerability makes pre-emptive violence rational. The sovereign ends the war by monopolising judgment and force. Locke, Mill, and constitutional democracy keep a common power and then limit it, which Hobbes refused as a right against the sovereign.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.