METHODS USED BY BEHAVIORISTS, PART II

[Note:  If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings.  The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).  Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]

The last posting reviewed data collection protocols utilized by political scientists.  This topic is being highlighted because of the influence political science has on the content of civics courses in American classrooms.  Civics teachers should have a solid understanding of that content and, in turn, a general understanding of that discipline’s research methods.  To the extent they do, therefore, what political scientists discover, generally, can and does have a guiding effect on what is taught in secondary classrooms.

          This posting will proceed to describe how discovered findings in the form of generalizations function to develop the models of political behavior that that discipline promotes.  The last posting ended with how behavioral studies report on correlations.  Correlations are relationships between or among factors (variables) that basically establish what happens to one or a set of factors when one or a set of other factors varies.  The first type of factor is known as a dependent variable and the second type is an independent variable.  The point was made, correlations are not statements of cause and effect.

          Cause and effect relationships are theorized in either theories or models.  Political science mostly relies on models – their proposed cause and effect claims are not grounded enough to be theory or elements of a theory.  So, Davies “J” curve model, that states that people who experience improving conditions but then see their fates in short order turn negative, will be disposed to behave disruptively or rebelliously due to their unmet rising expectations is an example.  That model has some support in the real world, but one can probably find non supportive evidence as well.

Stated in other words, a theoretical claim cannot be established simply by discovering a correlation.  Correlations can only hint at cause and effect, they do not prove them (although, they can, if extensive enough, disprove a theory).  Basically, that is what behavioral studies can do, hint at theoretical relationships, but that is no small contribution.  These findings become the “where as” or “since” elements of reasoned arguments that propose causations.

An ensuing issue is whether this research approach is ignored in classrooms that rely on didactic techniques – which have been the common instructional approaches of secondary schools.  By not demonstrating how this more interactive form of research might be conducted, civics students are deprived any experience at engaging with political factors or events.  They instead are lectured at about what behavioral studies reveal, however non-determinant such descriptions are.

If the academic field that provides the basic information avoids normative questioning, which behavioral studies do, then the resulting secondary school instruction will most likely avoid any semblance of controversy or relevancy.  It made the question of moral or immoral politics seem irrelevant.  This general observation should be kept in mind as this blog, in a future posting, reviews the content of the leading high school textbook in US schools.

But what about the previously cited post behavioral revolt that came about in the 1980s, which was pointed out in a previous posting?  One should keep in mind that the aim of the initial behavioral revolt was to allow political scientists to develop an overall theory that would explain why humans behave politically as they do.  The revolt came about because political science could not develop an overall theory as the individual natural sciences had been able to do over their subject matters. 

In an earlier posting, for example, it is pointed that out biology has the theory of natural selection to guide its research.[1]  Not so for political science; it instead is characterized as having a multitude of models that strive to explain or shed light on what determines various aspects of political phenomena.  And that goes for more recent research over societal problems that characterize post-behavioral studies.

To this point, the discipline, according to influential leaders in the field, needs to shift its attention to addressing pressing political problem areas, such as discriminatory policies by government or other powerful entities.  This, in turn, reintroduces a level of normative concerns that pure behavioralist studies purposely avoided so as to be more objective in their approach of their subject matter.  Here is a summary statement of this shift of concerns by a blogger this writer feels captures the it,

Post-Behaviroural Approach is both a movement and academic tendency.  It opposed the efforts of the Behavioural Approach to make Political Science a value free science.  The Post-Behavioural Approach is a future oriented approach which wants to solve problems of both present and future.  To this approach, the study of Political Science should put importance on social change.  To it political science must have some relevance to society.  Along with relevance, this approach believes that action is the core of … political science [study].  It accepts that political science needs to study all realities of politics, social change, values, etc.[2]

It turns out Elazar’s concerns[3] have not been totally forgotten or ignored.

          With the next posting, this blog will more directly address how the elements of political science research and theorizing affect civics instruction.  This effect, in line with the message of this posting, is not a cause and effect relationship.  It turns out that both the progression of political science and the evolution of civics curriculum seem to be affected by the same cultural force, the overall dominance of the natural rights view of governance and politics.

---

[1] A book that extensively reports on findings based on research that utilizes natural selection theory in the study of the human mind see Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company, 1997).

[2] Pankaj, “Behavioral and Post Behavioral Approach to Political Science,” Samaj the Society” – a blog, April 4, 2011, accessed February 19, 2020, http://samaj-thesociety.blogspot.com/2011/04/behavioral-and-post-behavioral-approach.html .

[3] Daniel J. Elazar identifies aims for political science (reported in a previous posting).  They are:  the pursuit of political justice in government’s role in establishing and maintaining order; discovering the generalizable factors that correlate with the various political actions that characterize a polity; and discover, communicate, and promote those policies that create a functional civic environment – through a civil society and a civil community. 

METHODS USED BY BEHAVIORISTS, PART I

[Note:  If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings.  The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).  Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]

This blog ends its review of behavioral political study by reporting on the basic methodology the political scientists of that movement – the behavioral movement – utilize.  Every academic field of study has an established method by which the practitioners of the field do their research.  This is not a haphazard endeavor; extraordinary steps are taken to define these methodologies. 

Practitioners take these methods seriously to ensure that the ways in which information is gathered and analyzed are legitimate according to thought-out rationales.  In addition, neophytes are strenuously trained in those methods.  In order to have their work taken seriously, scholars are critiqued on the methods they apply.  Their work will be judged on a variety of related issues such as statistical procedures, interviewing techniques, and analyses of physical evidence. 

By being taught these methods, the aim is to have would be political scientists learn to analyze, synthesize, and solve socially related problems or mysterious manifestations of curious events or developments.  In other words, such instruction teaches students how to view the world which, in turn, will affect what they “see” and what they do not “see.”

As to political systems theory and related approaches, David Easton in the 1950s led political science to analyze political processes in behavioral terms.  That is, the focus of study became human political behavior.[1]  This entails observing and measuring behaviors that relate to and affect political realities, such as voting, political group behavior, and conflict behavior. 

As stated previously in this blog, during the mid-twentieth century period, systems theory became the prominent approach in political science.  With this ascendancy, the main methodology became those associated with behavioral studies. 

By the 1970s and 1980s, the emphasis shifted somewhat to what Easton called a post-behavioral revolution,[2] but the bulk of studies published in the field’s peer reviewed journals still rely predominantly on “hard science techniques” as is indicated by a statement from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at that time (1987).

Although political scientists are prone to debate and [have] disagreement[s], the majority views the discipline as a genuine science.  As a result, political scientists generally strive to emulate the objectivity as well as the conceptual and methodological rigor typically associated with the so-called “hard” science (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics).  They see themselves as engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions.  Based on these revelations, they attempt to state general principles about the way the world of politics works.  Given these aims, it is important for political scientists’ writing to be conceptually precise, free from bias, and well-substantiated by empirical evidence.  Knowing that political scientists value objectivity may help you in making decisions about how to write [a political science related] paper and what to put in it.[3]

 Initially, the political systems approach attempted to apply those research techniques and theory building processes that defined the natural sciences. 

Surely, the reader can recall the simplified version taught in school known as the scientific method (a creation of science educators in order to teach what scientists do).  For those who need a reminder, here it is: 

1.     identify and define a problem;

2.    hypothesize an educated guess that would solve the problem;

3.    gather relevant information;

4.    analyze the information;

5.    draw a conclusion as to the truthfulness of the hypothesis; and

6.    apply the conclusion (mostly to substantiate or modify, if necessary, existing theory). 

Due to a host of critiques that evolved during the 1960s and '70s, the “post-behavioral revolution” occurred and resulted in applying scientific techniques to societal problems which were political in nature.

Why were political scientists attracted to this more “scientific” approach?  This is Easton’s answer to that question:

Unlike the great traditional theories of past political thought, new theory [of the behavioral movement] tends to be analytic, not substantive, general rather than particular, and explanatory rather than ethical.  That portion of political research which shares these commitments to both the new theory and the technical means of analysis and verification thereby links political science to broader behavioral tendencies in the social sciences and, hence, its description as political behavior.  This is the full meaning and significance of the behavioral approach in political science today [in 1967].[4]

In layman's terms, Easton first points out what the perceived problem with traditional, pre-1950, political study was.  That is, behaviorists view traditional study as highly speculative, mainly consisting of interpretations by political writers who non-objectively selected historical events to support preconceived conclusions. 

To combat this embedded bias, behavioral researchers would mimic natural scientists by incorporating their methods.  They would strive to be value free by utilizing experiments or observed behaviors (including responses to survey questionnaires).  More specifically, the resulting studies abstracted these observed behaviors from their social contexts.

The behaviors could be observed and measured from actual, real world activities or from simulated situations in which experimenters set up the politically relevant conditions.  The behaviors, once observed, were broken down so they could be measured in quantitative units (a process philosophically known as reductionism). 

For example, Congressional votes can be abstracted from their substantive context.  They can be analyzed to see what patterns emerge.  Patterns are correlations (noting what occurs when some other thing or things occur).  Despite pure scientific standards, correlations were converted into cause and effect relationships by formulating theories or explanations for the studied phenomena.  This latter activity is conducted apart from the data gathering activities by a separate cadre of political scientists.

An example of a correlation could be that becoming a US President and adherence to a Protestant religion have coincided in every case except one. All the presidents of the US have been Protestants apart from John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic.  A cause and effect relationship would claim there is something about being a Protestant that allows or strengthens the chances of a person to become a President but that would be left to a theorist to interpret.

In some cases, to point a more insightful relationship, political scientists might correlate certain demographic factors such as geographic regions, religions, income, education, and the like, with voting behavior.  Such correlations, if they exist, might suggest a generalization, such as poorly educated citizens might be too uninformed about issues to feel a necessity to vote.  Generalizations are the building components of a theory or model.

          The next posting will continue this review by looking at the role behavioral studies are meant to play in the development of theory.  One should keep in mind that the ultimate aim of the behavioral revolt was to allow political scientists to develop an overall theory that would explain why humans behave politically as they do.

---

[1] David Easton, The Political System (New York, NY:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1953).  This source was not a call for behavioral study, but in its description of politics within systems naturally led to that methodology.

[2] John G. Gunnell, “Political Theory and Political Science,” in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, edited by David Miller, Janet Coleman, William Connolly, and Alan Ryan (Cambridge, MA:  Blackwell, 1987), 386-930.

[3] “Political Science,” The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, n. d., accessed February 19, 2020, https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/political-science/ .

[4] David Easton, “The Current Meanings of “Behavioralism,” in Contemporary Political Analysis, edited by James C. Charlesworth (New York, NY:  The Free Press 1967), 11-31, 31.  The reader should compare these aims with the aims Daniel J. Elazar identifies (reported in a previous posting).  They are:  the pursuit of political justice in government’s role in establishing and maintaining order; discovering the generalizable factors that correlate with the various political actions that characterize a polity; and discover, communicate, and promote those policies that create a functional civic environment – through a civil society and a civil community. 

THE CURRENCY, POWER

[Note:  If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings.  The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).  Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]

To this point, this blog has reviewed what the political world looks like through the natural rights perspective.  As far as a theoretical view, the political systems model was central for political scientists during the decades of the mid twentieth century.    Shortly, this blog proceeds with an overview of the methodology this approach promoted and how those methods reflected the general adoption of an approach known as behaviorism.[1] 

This bias has further influenced the portrayal of government in American civics courses.  That is, it reflects the market orientation of how Americans have come to see governance and politics.  As described so far, the political system has multiple parts which interact in order to provide governmental services.  These services are distributed through a competitive process. 

Those who gain the benefits derived from those services do so because they can exert more power than others.  Educators who instruct students about this process, therefore, are teaching their students about the exercises of power.  Unfortunately, this effect does not extend to highlight this currency; it is assumed without giving its proper due.

So, the language they use might not be so blunt, but that is what they are teaching.  One can ask, what is power in this social sense?  The definition used here is:  power is the ability of a person or a group, A, to get a person or a group, B, to do something B would not do otherwise.[2] 

For example, if one, in an agitated way, walks into a room, sees another person sitting comfortably on a lounge chair and yells, “Get up,” and that person stands, that is an incident of power if one assumption is true.  The assumption is that the other person was not about to stand up on his/her own accord to, say, get a cup of coffee.  That is, that B was content to continue his/her rest. 

This silly example is important because it illustrates how potentially difficult it is to measure power – only the lounging person knows what is going on in his/her mind and what he/she wants to do or is about to do.  At its base then, this business of analyzing politics has a bit indetermination to it, but that does not seem to humble those who conduct much of what is called behavioral studies – more on this below.

With a definition in hand, a further step in conceptualizing power is to look at a categorizing scheme that identifies types of power.  John R. P. French and Bertram H. Raven identify five types based on the motivation that someone would have to do something he or she would not want to do otherwise – that is, the mental states that would lead one to yield to the wishes of someone else. 

This is bit ironic since behavioral studies claims to stand clear of such mental content – after all, they claim what is studied is what people do, not what they think and feel.  But when one wants to wield power, costs are involved and if certain strategies are geared to take advantage of what people are apt to acquiesce to, then one has to speculate as to motivations on the part of the governed or ruled.

So, there are mental perceptions or expectations of coercion, reward, legitimacy, expertise, or reference (known, in turn, as coercive power, reward power, legitimacy power, expert power, and referent power).[3]  This conceptualization is not only applicable to behavioral studies, but equally apply to either federal theory based-studies or the studies based on other constructs – power is that central to politics and political behavior.  It is the currency of politics.

For purposes here, this account reduces power to three types: avoidance of punishment, seeking reward, and a sense of duty.  One should consider, when utilizing the systems model, there are winners and losers and this, in turn, creates issues.  No matter how small in dimension a political engagement happens to be, those who are engaged in it are participating in a process of competition.  They conduct these competitive activities in the context of a system, a conglomeration of parts and actors that to some large degree, is organized and is intra-active.

There are actors who are in positions to make distributive decisions and there are actors who are vying for sought after gains in the form of policies, waivers, or payouts.  In the vying for gains (desired outputs), the engaged actors can very well hold and promote competing political values and aims in the form of the preferred policies they are seeking. 

Often, these actors, whether in positions of authority or not (some might enjoy highly influential positions without holding formal government office), hold a position of a relative level of power to influence or to make decisions that revolve around the differences between competing values and preferences.  This exercise in power usually reflects negotiating among the various interests the “players” in a competition might have.  The decision can be not to decide, to decide in favor of one or a combination of interests, or to compromise on a policy. 

The exercise of power determines which way it goes.  In the natural rights view, each participant is only concerned with extending that participant’s interest to the greatest extent possible at the least cost possible.  For better or worse, this is how the system formulates “consensus” and arrives at a policy decision. 

Players are apt to exercise power in all three forms.  It metes out rewards and punishments and it also solicits a sense of duty and obligation.  Therefore, central to this whole process are the authoritative decisions that determine whose values will be honored – catered to – and whose will not. 

In addition, a study of this process (be it by decision-makers, competitors, or academics) entertains questions about how legitimacy is maintained even among the “losers” of a political competition.  After all, there is always tomorrow, and the system needs to maintain its players playing by the rules – rules that need to be of benefit to all. 

While this whole process refers to the organizational workings of groups and government, the systems approach focuses on the behavior of individuals within that structure who act from motivations of self-interest.  Obviously, irrespective of the systems model emphasis on the individual – basic unit of analysis – any study of politics must account for collectives such as groups, associations, organizations of varying formalities, and governing processes. 

But the political systems model, as it has already been emphasized, accommodates political analysis of these collectives under the demands of individual participants behaving in such a way as to advance each actor’s own individual interests.[4] 

One should remember that how a person defines his/her self-interest can vary from person to person.  A person can want monetary benefits or reputational accolades or artistic recognition or athletic prowess, etc.  But however, one defines it, the systems approach – much in line with Machiavelli thinking[5] – sees this as the determining motivator in how he or she behaves politically.

A vivid example at this point helps.  That would be New York City's legendary Robert Moses, who was the central official determining the winners of New York’s political scene from the 1930s into the 1960s.  An extended quote from an interview with Moses' biographer, Robert Caro, gives one a taste of what is being described:

[For a highway, bridge, tunnel, park, etc.] Moses gave the contracts, the legal fees, the insurance premiums, the underwriting fees, and the jobs to the individuals, corporations, and unions who had the most political influence.  So they all had a vested interest in seeing that his project was built.  Therefore, if the people of a neighborhood, or their assemblyman or congressman, or a mayor or governor, tried to stop one of his projects, they would find themselves confronted by immense pressure from the very system they were a part of.  A huge public work – a bridge or a tunnel or a great highway – is a source of raw power, if it is used right, and no one ever used power with such ingenuity, and such ruthlessness, as Robert Moses.[6]

Power is not limited to government.  Power is potentially exercised in any social institution – businesses, churches, schools, medical facilities, legal firms, etc. – or any individual.  Given this fact, one can begin to understand that politics is ubiquitous.  The former popular TV show, The Good Wife,[7] dedicates a lot of its story lines to the political power plays within a legal firm upon which the series is based.  But examples can also be seen in everyday life.

During a recent Christmas season, the postal service ran an ad which depicted a husband and wife trying to decide who was going to tackle which holiday chore.  The wife says she will go to the mall if the husband takes care of mailing the gifts.  The husband immediately says that he will go to the mall because dealing with postage and the post office is a nightmare. 

He grabs the keys and runs to the car for his trip to the mall.  Just then the postman walks up and explains to the wife that sending packages is easy.  She responds with a wink, “I know.”  The postman says, “Oh, you're good.”  Power comes in many different guises and being the recipient or the victim might often go unnoticed.

What the last various postings try to communicate is not how civics is taught.  Future postings will address that.  What they to do try is to communicate a view of politics that has served as an overall understanding of politics that civics educators, including textbook authors, have brought to the task of planning and implementing their curricular ideas.  How these images have been interpreted needs to be reviewed and will serve as topics of future postings.

---

[1] This writer has also seen this term referred to as behavioralism.  Apparently, the term behaviorism refers to the analysis of behavior in psychology, while behavioralism is a term used in political science designating the study of political behavior.  Both terms are used here interchangeably.

[2] Andre Munro, “Robert A. Dahl:  American Political Scientist and Educator,” Encyclopaedia  Britannica, February 1, 2020, accessed February 12, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-A-Dahl .

[3] Coercive power occurs when a person does something to avoid a punishment; reward power occurs when a person does something to gain a reward; legitimacy power occurs when a person does something out of a sense of duty; expert power occurs when a person does something because he/she is told to by a person who he or she believes to have some expertise, such as a doctor or lawyer; and referent power occurs when someone does something to be associated with someone, group and/or something.

[4] To be clear, a lot of the analysis might very well study group dynamics.  The point is that even with this level of analysis, the basic assumption is that each participating actor will strive to advance his/her self-interest.

[5] See posting, “Foundations of the Natural Rights View,” March 10, 2020, accessed March 19, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/03/foundations-of-natural-rights-view.html .

[6] Ric Burns and James Sanders, New York: An Illustrated History (New York, NY:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1999), 462.

[7] Robert King and Michell King (creators and producers), The Good Wife, CBS (a television series), 2009.

REQUISITE FUNCTIONS

[Note:  If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings.  The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).  Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]

This blog of late has been reviewing an approach to political science that originated in the 1930s but took hold in the fifties and sixties.  That is the systems model approach that attempted to incorporate a more natural science methodology to the study of politics.  Through what was called the behavioral revolt, the discipline took a decisively quantitative turn – with an extensive use of statistics – to see if political behavior could be predicted as well as scientists of natural phenomena had been able to provide. 

As the century approached its end, the practitioners of this behavioral approach became convinced that it could not be as predictable.  While the systems approach has not been totally abandoned, it has been modified as it is pursued through the study of more specific realms of political behavior and by using less or none-quantitative methods.  The last posting reviewed this turn.  This posting will continue with its review of the systems approach and turn to the work of Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr. [1] 

For the general reader, this might be getting into the weeds a bit – and if the reader thinks so, he or she might skip this and the next posting – but the work of Almond and Powell adds richness to the systems model.  It also provides some insight into why the presentation of American government takes the form it does in civics textbooks.

The Almond and Powell model, the structural-functional model, provides this guidance in a more underlying fashion.  One will not find the term structural-functional anywhere in a civics textbook.  But a casual review of how the material of such a textbook is organized will readily demonstrate how the structure of the political system constitutes the main elements of such a text.  Those texts explain those elements by reviewing their functions.[2]

This model further enriches the political systems model by adding a more substantive view of what governmental decision-makers must take into account as they make their decisions.  Their model does this by adding a requisite dimension to the systems model.  These functional attributes of the model are reviewed in civics courses as commonsensical concerns government and the citizenry consider as they go about their political activities.

More explicitly, Almond and Powell describe how political systems need to satisfy certain functions in order to survive.  A political system not fulfilling these functions can be considered dysfunctional and to the degree that a system is dysfunctional it is creating damaging stress to that system.  Stress is mentioned in a prior posting which reports that Easton, the main theoretician of the systems model, expresses concern over stress, but Almond and Powell place a greater emphasis on this problem.

Sufficient stress can threaten the continuance of the system or, at least, affect its “health.”  For example, Almond and Powell identify the function of rulemaking as a requisite function and to illustrate, one can cite the years of the Obama administration.  During Obama’s years in office beginning in 2010, the US Senate fell under control of the opposition party.  Through filibustering, the rulemaking body of the government, the Congress, became stymied, resulting in the federal government not meeting the pressing problems facing the nation.[3]  That is, the situation became seriously dysfunctional. 

This inability to make necessary rules (laws), therefore, caused significant stress and led many citizens to view the central government as illegitimate to a meaningful degree.[4]  Over the subsequent years, the situation has not improved a great deal.  The last meaningful legislation to pass Congress was the enormous tax cut the Trump administration was able to get through since both the Congress and the presidency were controlled by the Republican Party.  That condition lasted for only two years and consequently the esteem that government enjoys continues to be very low as inaction prevails.[5]

Whether or not this is totally accurate, to the extent that it is true, the situation illustrates Almond and Powell's point.  That is, the functions they list are requisites for a healthy, surviving system because they allow the system to handle demands on government.  The list of functions these theorists include are the aforementioned rulemaking as well as rule-application, rule-adjudication (these first three align themselves perfectly with the three branches of government), interest articulation, and interest aggregation (the input elements of the political system). 

While civics textbooks are organized around the substances of these functions – they demonstrate the obvious structural elements of the government in relation to these concerns – they do not use the language of Almond and Powell.  They, the textbooks, also do not place any importance on the cultural environment of the system or the elements of the society that are not directly part of the political decision-making process (of which some elements reside within government and some without) which are elements of Almond and Powell’s model. 

That is, these theorists highlight the political culture of a political system.  This culture applies meaningful limits on what demands, and behaviors are acceptable.  Their devised list of functions can be generically applied to any political system, but their account of political culture allows scholars to tailor their research to the varying political realities of the differing systems around the world (Almond and Powell have been leading contributors to the field of comparative politics).

By emphasizing requisite functions, an obvious consequence is that the system, to fulfill these functions, must establish and maintain appropriate structures – departments, agencies, offices – and institutionalized processes by its various structural elements – e.g., how interest groups go about their business.  The total of these structural and procedural elements become important parts of the system that is analyzed and studied by the implementation of this model. 

Again, civics instruction does describe some of these structural processes and other attributes but in a hit or miss fashion given the proclivities of a given textbook author.  One should remember that constructs function as a source of questions and concerns for those pursuing knowledge in a field of study.  In terms of secondary school curriculum, any textbook instruction, under a natural rights bias, is aimed at satisfying the perceived consumer demands of the typical citizen.

This overview of political systems can give one a sense of the types of questions political scientists ask when studying political behavior, such as questions relating to the inactivity of Congress just mentioned.  As this model is applied to civics and government instruction in the nation’s classrooms, though, a teacher and his or her materials, such as the textbook, can borrow those questions and inquiries for his/her resulting instruction. 

It has been noted that current efforts in this regard have been influenced by the perceptions of a consumerist view of governance, which, in turn, has been the targeted concern of the typical textbook.  That is, the main concern tends to be what a future consumer of governmental service needs to know in order to be a satisfied or, at least, a placated citizen in his/her interaction with government.

Michael Lewis provides a quote that reflects this view among the American public.  That is, he quotes a NOAA official, Kathy Sullivan.  Lewis writes:

The relationship between the people and government troubled [Sullivan].  The government was the mission of an entire society:  why was the society undermining it?  “I’m routinely appalled by how profoundly ignorant even highly educated people are when it comes to the structure and function of our government,” she said.  “The sense of identity as Citizen has been replaced by Consumer.  The idea that government should serve the citizen like a waiter or concierge, rather than in a ‘collective good’ sense.”[6]

The upcoming review of the leading American government textbook will demonstrate this bias.  Oh, there are exceptions in that book, but they are few entries in a thick textbook and are easily lost and ignored.

“Traditionally ... civics courses in American schools have been more narrowly defined. They have focused almost exclusively on the structure and function of government, particularly at the federal level.”[7]  This blog will and has more fully critiqued this approach among American civics courses, but here it is useful to point out that this model was not designed to provide a foundation for educational purposes. 

It is offered by academics for purposes such as providing guidance for research.  While the judgment here is that it falls short of what Daniel J. Elazar sets out as the goals of political science, it also misleads what civics instructors of secondary courses should be aiming to accomplish. 

Nevertheless, it has been incorporated by educators to outline the structural and substantive content that comprises our civics curriculum.  While most civics and government courses of study at the secondary level do not present anything like a political science course, the systems approach does provide it an organizing template. 

The courses generally begin by looking at the overall theoretical/philosophic foundation of the system with a strong emphasis on individual rights.  Then the focus shifts toward certain sources of demands such as interest groups and political parties.  This is followed by looking at the formal system – the government – itself.  This latter coverage looks at the following in this order:  the Congress, the Presidency, the bureaucracy, the Supreme Court, and the court system. 

The course ends with a very abbreviated – and mirroring – version of the state governments.  This short overview is meant more to “cover the bases” then to add any substantive material.  In order to assist in this description, this blog will give the reader in the next posting a general description of one of its key concepts that further enriches this theoretical view.  That concept is power.

---

[1] Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little, Brown. 1966).

[2] This blog in a future posting will review the best-selling high school text and that review will demonstrate this utilization of the structural-functional model.

[3] Thomas E. Mann Norman J. Ornstein, N. J.  “Finding the Common Good in an Era of Dysfunctional Governance,” Daedalus:  Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 142, 2 (2013), 15-24.

[4] This dysfunction continues to the day of this writing (2020) but not through the filibuster.  Today the culprit is extreme partisanship.

[5] This might be altered by the demands of the coronavirus with which the system is currently dealing.

[6] Michael Lewis, The Fifth Risk (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton & Company, 2018), 193-194 (Kindle edition).  NOAA stands for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

[7] William T. Callahan, Jr., “Introduction,” in Citizenship for the 21st Century, eds. William T. Callahan, Jr. and Ronald A. Banaszak (Bloomington, IN: Social Studies Development Center, 1990, 1-9, 2.